Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 228)
TUESDAY 16 JANUARY 2001
MS MICHELLE
CHILDS, MR
PHIL EVANS,
MS JILL
JOHNSTONE AND
MR PAUL
DIXON
220. When did they ask you?
(Mr Evans) It was just a simple clearance procedure,
"Do you mind us quoting your evidence?".
221. So do you think it was a late, last-minute
decision?
(Mr Evans) No, I do not think it was, it was just
a clearance of whether they could quote our submission. Having
said that, we supported the original PayCom proposals because
they seemed very well argued. Having said that, I do not think
we have a particular problem with moving to the OFT. There are
always difficulties in establishing new bodies. The possibility
of putting PayCom in the OFT has some major advantages in the
sense that you have a regulator which is not a sector specific
one and so is much more able to take a more holistic view of competition.
That is key for the OFT role. Also, one of the advantages the
OFT has is that it has both a consumer remit and a competition
remit. So the possibility of cross-fertilisation and cross-thinking
is much greater within a more general regulator. We are certainly
not enormously disappointed in the idea that it goes to the OFT,
because the OFT itself is becoming better at its role of enforcing
competition.
(Ms Childs) Clearly the OFT will have to prove itself.
The potential downside is that they have so many other tasks they
will not have the time, the inclination or the resources to enforce
what is required under the terms of PayCom effectively. Although
we think there are some benefits to going to the OFT, we think
the jury is still out on whether they are actually going to prove
it. We are encouraged by the fact that John Vickers has made various
statements in relation to recognising the importance of consumers
and vigorously protecting their rights, but we do have that caveat.
(Ms Johnstone) Our view is exactly the same. We are
not opposed to the OFT having this role. We shall have to see
how it is going to be carried out. With the details we have, we
are not in a position to say precisely whether it is going to
work for consumers.
222. Cruickshank's argument for a separate PayCom
regulator was that it would give a sustained dynamic focus on
the sector. In your evidence this morning you have been explaining
how various practices are adopted to try to get more money out
of the consumer. Do you not think that really does suggest the
need for a very unique regulator who does not have other responsibilities,
because we are talking about a dynamic thing which is changing
all the time? Let us face it, the banking industry is a very large
industry, larger than all the other industries which have their
own separate regulators. Is there not a prima facie case
for a PayCom separate regulator?
(Ms Childs) It would be a different question if they
were regulating the whole of the banking sector. The remit of
PayCom is quite narrow and does involve an understanding of competition
dynamics. The OFT, for example, has oversight of mergers, which
we have not spoken about, which are equally important in the banking
sector. They have some experience. I agree with you that it is
not clear cut. From our perspective we want something that works.
We are encouraged by the fact that the OFT has some experience
in this area, but we do have some qualms about whether they will
have the resources and the commitment to do it. We would be looking
for the OFT to show that they would have the resources to do it.
223. What sort of benefits would you expect
for the consumer from this new regulatory role now proposed to
be given to the OFT?
(Ms Childs) The initial benefits are indirect because
PayCom are focusing on the wholesale level rather than directly
on the retail level. We would hope that in terms of assisting
competition in transmission between banks and allowing newer entrants
to come in and looking at the terms under which they can come
into that market, that would then flow through. There are also
links between the information we can get about costs, which can
be publicised, which would assist in putting pressure on banks
at the retail level. It is not a direct regulation of the retail
sector, it is a more indirect one. That was Cruickshank's focus.
He was looking at actually bringing in new entrants. We think
that there is benefit in bringing in new entrants but that is
not the way to solve all of the issues in the banking sector because
there are lots of people out there selling products. You need
to be looking at ways to make consumers switch and some of the
other barriers to their moving and issues around product service,
none of which will actually be dealt with by PayCom.
(Ms Johnstone) This is indirect and it is not the
retail market. One of the things we shall be looking for in particular
is much greater price transparency than we currently have. If
PayCom can deliver that, in a sense that will help unravel some
of the problems we are tackling.
224. In this area the Government also changes
and moves away from Cruickshank's proposals for a class licensing
system in relation to the wholesale market. Are you worried that
it is going to go for more general sector specific rules rather
than a class licence based system which would have been a quite
innovative way of regulating the banking system?
(Ms Childs) The bottom line is that we want something
which works and the class licence system was a useful idea in
the sense that it gave some freedom but set clear rules rather
than relying on things after events. We have some disappointment
about that.
Chairman
225. May I return for a second to cash machines?
Could you tell us what the situation now is? When we originally
had representatives of four banks in front of us it was very much
a moving scene, indeed the policy changed in front of our eyes.
You have been watching this. Could you tell us?
(Ms Childs) I must apologise but I do not have the
exact details in front of me. I am happy to send you a separate
note on this.[2]
226. What is your overall position on charges?
(Ms Childs) Our overall position is that if there
are going to be charges they have to reflect costs and consumers
should not be double charged.
227. There is a case for charges, but they have
to be related to costs.
(Ms Childs) Yes, but they have to be open and they
have to be transparent.
(Ms Johnstone) We would concur with that.
228. What about when somebody from one bank
uses a cash machine from another bank? Should there be extra charges
there?
(Ms Childs) That is a matter between the banks rather
than necessarily for the consumer to pay directly. Then it is
a question for the individual bank as to how they choose to recover
that cost. Clearly it is an overhead for them but I do not feel
that it is something which should be directly charged to consumers.
It is a cost of business.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
for your responses.
2 See p 59. Back
| 
